70-300 Sigma or Nikon Delima Please Help!

BeanAnimal · #1 12/28/2006, 11:34 PM

I asked for a VR zoom for my D50 from SantiKlaus. The jackass at the camera store (Ritz Camera) actually talked here out of it!! She did not want to spend that much but would have... he qued on that and talked her into a $200 Sigma lens. He talked her out of the VR saying it was a maintenance nightmare waiting to happen, it took MUCH MORE expensive filters, it was special order and back ordered due to the season, it had only fair reviews... blah blah blah... He then talked her out of the $400 70-300 Nikon as it was overpriced and he did not have any in the store.... So she got the Sigma because he said it was the best lens for the money. (starting to sound like an LFS story!)

Anyway here is my problem. She overpaid for a lens and I am now stuck in that price range. I can move in that price range and she will understand if I explain sharpness for the same price etc.. Moving back up to a more expensive lens will cause a lot of grief and hard feelings about a gift... I just do not want to go there.

So I ended up with the:

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DL Super II. She paid near $200 (it can be found for $125 all over the place)

It appears that this lens has been replaced by the "DG" version (I have the DL version) I looked but found no good info to differentiate.

To make matters more confusing BOTH the "DL" and "DG" come in APO versions for $30 more.

Reviews for these lenses are all over the board from "soft junk" to "super crisp for the money". I fear she paid a lot for the oldest model with no ED glass so that is my first problem. Is it worth the sour feelings if I go try and trade it in for at least the better "APO DG" version????

These have a "Macro" mode between 200-300 that does 1:2 so it is not great and not true macro.. but I do not have a macro lens yet.

Secondly and to make matters more confusing:
Nikon has a cheapy version of their 70-300
It is the Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6 G for the same price. Most reports are that other than no Aperature ring and a plastic mount, it is 100% identicle to the $400 ED version and the ED version only has a token piece of ED glass so it can carry the "ED" moniker and price. I read reviews that show the lenses to be the same and likely 100% identicle to the Tamrom 70-300 as well.

So trade up to the "newer" Sigma? Trade sideways to the Nikon with NO MACRO or just keep what I have and don't let her know it is not what I wanted? Like I said throwing in a few hundred more is NOT an option.

My thoughts:
I really wanted MACRO for the tank, but 1:2 is not that hot. The Nikon cheapy at least says "Nikon" on it. I would hope that the Nikon would perform slightly better than the Sigma but am unshure. I am unshure how the Sigma compares to the other 3 in the family.

Nikon_Guy · #2 12/29/2006, 02:13 AM

This may be a solution to you problem. Being as you want a 1:1 macro anyway, trade that lens in for the Sigma EX (and only EX) 105mm macro. I have had that lens for a year now and it performs wonderfully. Works pretty well as a portrait lens too.

I am a huge Nikkor person but have found this particular lens to be quite good at about half the price of the Nikkor product.

JR719 · #3 12/29/2006, 02:22 AM

Sounds like someone was talked into a lens that was in stock.....

If you want to take macro shots, get a macro lens. I've seen a lot of pics with both the Sigma 105's and the Nikon 105's. Big price difference between the two.

If you want a good longer range lens, the Nikon 80-200 is very sweet for the money. Pic your poison.

TheVillageIdiot · #4 12/29/2006, 10:08 AM

My experience with Ritz and Wolf camera employees has not been good. Not good at all.

Sigma makes decent lenses, but they are notorius for quality control issues, that is why you see so much variance in reviews. One person will get a sharp one, the next a softie that needs rechipping. If I were you, I would trade in the Sigma for the Nikon 70-300mm. The ED is nice, but like you have already said, there's not much difference other than the single ED element.

While you save up for a true macro lens, pick up a $30.00 B+W closeup lens from BHphoto.com or 17photo.com and use it on your 70-300. You may be suprised by the results.

good luck!

BeanAnimal · #5 12/29/2006, 10:32 AM

So the $200 70-300mm Nikon does not suffer as much from QC and in general should outperform the Sigmas?

Yes, I would rather save for the true macro! I just was not sure if I should trade up to one of the generations of the Sigma lens, or jump over to the Nikon and lose the 1:2 "macro" on the sigma.

Bean

TheVillageIdiot · #6 12/29/2006, 10:46 AM

Quote:

So the $200 70-300mm Nikon does not suffer as much from QC and in general should outperform the Sigmas?

Bean,

check out both 17photo.com and bhphoto.com, and you should be able to find (when they have them in stock) that both sites carry the 70-300G for significantly less than $200.00 and the QC from Nikon is much better than Sigma.

70-300G at 17photo.com

if you're wondering about 17photo.com, they are top notch, i've ordered both mine and my wife's cameras from them, no problems. Answer the phone everytime I call.

good luck and hth,

Matt